M/s Virgo Industries, Panchkula V. ITO, Panchkula

ITA 798/CHANDI/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2586 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-01-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 28-10-2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS. RANO JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.798/CHD/2015 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-13) M/S VIRGO INDUSTRIES, VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, H.NO. 129, SECTOR 10, WARD-1, PANCHKULA, HRY. PANCHKULA, HRY. PAN: AAEFV9154A (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI MANOJ KUMAR RESPONDENT BY : SHRI MANOJ MISHRA, DR DATE OF HEARING : 22.12.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 19.01.2016 O R D E R PER RANO JAIN, A.M . : THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), PANCHKULA DATED 9.9.2015 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13. 2. THE ONLY ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS APPEAL IS AGAINST THE ACTION OF THE LEARNED CIT (AP PEALS) IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION UNDER S ECTION 80IC OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT ) MADE 2 BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HA D ALLOWED THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IC OF THE ACT ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF 25% AS AGAINST 100% BENEFIT CLAIME D BY THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSION UN DER SECTION 80IC(2) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD HELD THAT THE BENEFIT OF SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSION IS ALLOWA BLE ONLY TO THE UNDERTAKINGS WHICH WERE EXISTING PRIOR TO 7. 1.2003. 3. DURING THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE US, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FAIRLY CONCEDED TH AT THE ISSUE IS COVERED BY THE LATEST ORDER OF THE I.T.A.T ., CHANDIGARH BENCH IN THE CASE OF HYCRON ELECTRONICS VS. ITO (2015) 41 ITR (TRIB) 486(CHANDIGARH) AGAINST TH E ASSESSEE. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH THE PARTIES, PERUSED THE FINDINGS OF THE AUTHO RITIES BELOW AND CONSIDERED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECO RD. ON PERUSAL OF THE ORDER OF THE I.T.A.T., CHANDIGARH BENCH IN THE CASE OF HYCRON ELECTRONICS (SUPRA), WE OBSE RVE THAT THE ISSUE IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THIS ORDER AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. THE RELEVANT FINDINGS OF THE I.T.A.T. ARE AT PARA 49 OF THE ORDER, WHICH READS A S UNDER: 49. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DETAILED DISCUSSION WE HOL D THAT THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US I.E. M/S HYCRON ELECTRONICS IN ITA NO. 798/CHD/2012 IS ENTITLED TO ONLY 25% OF DEDUCTION D URING THE PRESENT YEAR BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY AVAI LED THE PERIOD OF FULL DEDUCTION @ 100% IN THE EARLIER FIVE YEARS I.E. FROM ASSESSMENT YEARS 2004-05 TO 2008-09. IN THIS BACKGROUND, WE FIND NOTHING WRONG WITH THE ORDER OF LD. 3 CIT(A) AND WE UPHOLD THE SAME. ACCORDINGLY, ASSESS EES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 5. THIS CONCLUSION WAS ARRIVED AT BY THE I.T.A.T., CHANDIGARH BENCH AFTER CONSIDERING THE ISSUE IN DET AIL AS TO THE VARIOUS PROVISIONS OF THE ACT IN THIS REGARD AND DULY DELIBERATING THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE PARTIES IN ELABORATION. SINCE NO DISTINGUISHING FACTS WERE B ROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF THE CO- ORDINATE BENCH, WE ALSO UPHOLD THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN RESTRICTING THE DEDUCTION. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 19 TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2016. SD/- SD/- (BHAVNESH SAINI) (RANO JAIN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 19 TH JANUARY, 2016 *RATI* COPY TO: THE APPELLANT/THE RESPONDENT/THE CIT(A)/THE CIT/THE DR. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 4